re: New Terminology

Guys, no offense, but I've hardly seen such a kludgy bunch of terminology.
Equally-divided octave? Temperament is no good, but "octave" is? If the
terminology were to be revised, you could use...

1. "equal-step tuning" -- what it says
a) "Nth root of X tuning" -- when you think of the steps as an equal
division of some interval.
b) "C-equal" -- where C is in cents; for when you think of the size of
the steps as being the important part.

2. "temperament" -- for any tuning featuring approximations; has nothing
to do with chains of intervals (or the lack thereof).

3. "chain tuning" -- what it says
a) "pythagorean" -- chains of 3/2's reduced by 2/1's.
b) "meantone" -- chains of flat 3/2's, reduced by 2/1's, so that the
best 5/4 = 4 of them. Can also been used to indicate any tuning
in which 4(3/2)=5/4, chained or no, with appropriate context.

4. "microtonal" -- for all non-12 music; if you don't like implications
of strangeness, don't say anything about tuning to your audience!

...but why bother? Natural languages bear the scars of their evolution.
But they aren't scars at all. If the meaning of a word could be exactly
derrived from its etymology, language could not exist!

What we have works. Use your own funky terms if you want, but why insist
that somebody else does too? If it ain't broke...

-Carl

[Carl Lumma:]
>I've hardly seen such a kludgy bunch of terminology. Equally-divided
octave? Temperament is no good, but "octave" is? If the terminology
were to be revised, you could use...

Though I've been using some derivation of "equally divided octave" for
about a year now on the TD, I've never posted anything along the lines
of 'this is the way to go' or whatever - I used it for personal
reasons I've already gone into a couple of times here recently... That
anyone else would think it were anything worth looking at at all
probably only speaks to the fact that there is some degree of
dissatisfaction afloat with some elements of some standard tuning
terminology.

> What we have works.

Your probably right.

>Use your own funky terms if you want, but why insist that somebody
else does too? If it ain't broke...

Hmm, that sounds mightily like the 'argument' my friends (and
not-friends) offer when I attempt to interest them in the possible
virtues of microtonality too...

Mr. Funky (actually I like Mr. Kludgy better)

> Equally-divided octave? Temperament is no good, but "octave" is?
No one said there's anything wrong with "Temperament".
Clearly however, there is confusion with regard to simply calling any EDO a
temperament, which is what that was about.

Monzo, that's a bizarre definition of temperament you've got in the
dictionary : "a tuning which is not a just-intonation; that is, the
intervals are not small-integer ratios"

> 3. "chain tuning" -- what it says
> a) "pythagorean" -- chains of 3/2's reduced by 2/1's.
> b) "meantone" -- chains of flat 3/2's, reduced by 2/1's, so that the
> best 5/4 = 4 of them. Can also been used to indicate any tuning
> in which 4(3/2)=5/4, chained or no, with appropriate context.
This sounds like a nice addition. Not that big a leap since "chain of ..."
is common practice.

> 4. "microtonal" -- for all non-12 music; if you don't like implications
> of strangeness, don't say anything about tuning to your audience!
Carl, understand that 12EDO is not a universal point of reference. I've been
listening to Middle Eastern, Indian, & 12EDO music all my life. To me they
are all just tunings, all just music. "micro" nothing.

> What we have works.
For their specific purposes, yes.

I can't believe you're implying that the handful of terms and theories
we have are the be all & end all, & that they should never change, or
expand. As the tuning arena expands, matures, & diversifies, many more terms
& theories will turn up & evolve.

If anyone's worried about too much terminology, don't be. Look up how many
terms exist within the 12EDO arena alone. This is kid's stuff.

> Use your own funky terms if you want, but why insist
> that somebody else does too? If it ain't broke...
Some of it is sort of broke, some is just lovely, while much of it does not
exist. Such vehement resistance to change and progress is odd, anyhow
nobody's forcing anyone to change. You can still call a car a horseless
carriage, if that's your pleasure.

Just read TD465 :
First you say :
> There is a great deal of dissatisfaction, and rightfully so.

Then you say :
> But the terms
> I'm concerned with aren't "temperament" or "microtone". I'm much more
> concerned with "mode", "5th", "JI", etc. We recently won a great victory
> with "adaptive" and "strict" JI.
So, I guess this means that only what Carl is concerned with is worth
discussing. Duh.

Free your mind & the rest will follow.
- Drew

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com